Kerridge v. Jester

Under Albrich v. Allstate Ins. Co., 152 Or App 416 (1998), “a change in conditions or circumstances is more likely to constitute a valid basis for concluding that the enforcement of the judgment is no longer equitable [under ORCP 71 B(1)(e)] if the change makes enforcement of the judgment unnecessary or somehow thwarts the aim of the judgment.”

Jester appealed an order denying her motion for relief from a 2011 judgment requiring, inter alia, the sale of real property once owned by Jester and Webb. On appeal, Jester argued that further prospective enforcement of the judgment would be inequitable under ORCP 71 B(1)(e) because she retained a right of survivorship and received full title to the property upon Webb’s death. In response, Kerridge argued that the prior judgment terminated Jester’s right of survivorship because it dissolved Jester and Webb’s unregistered domestic partnership and divided their shared asset. Under Albrich v. Allstate Ins. Co., 152 Or App 416 (1998), “a change in conditions or circumstances is more likely to constitute a valid basis for concluding that the enforcement of the judgment is no longer equitable [under ORCP 71 B(1)(e)] if the change makes enforcement of the judgment unnecessary or somehow thwarts the aim of the judgment.” The Court found that Jester “asserted [no] valid basis for concluding that the prospective enforcement of the judgment is no longer equitable.” The Court reasoned that the judgment provided unconditional rights and obligations for both parties and that those rights and obligations remain the same even after Webb’s death. Affirmed.